Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6125536" data-attributes="member: 23484">...and we disagree; and I can say so without offending you at all. Your counter example is working on one level of design. Classes. Straightforward and simple, and (for some) elegant. As a counter-example, it is not relevant to my proposal in any way.A better example (from 3e) would be if there were a Samurai class and a Samurai prestige class and a feat called "Samurai powers". All in the PHB, out of the gate. The difference between these two cases is (for me) significant. If you don't perceive the difference, that's fine, but it means we are unlikely to have a productive discussion.I believe I am actively encouraging a more open-ended ("sandbox" rather than "railroading")-approach that affords players dynamic innovative choices while still allowing straightforward ("basic") choices to work side by side one another. I want clean, clear options for players and a flexible elegant system that encourages creativity and rewards lateral thinking and system mastery, while not drowning new players in having to make choices the design team was unwilling to make.Others will want different things -- and that's fine. But it serves no one to mischaracterize each another and very nearly to call another person silly.</blockquote>